Student Loses Ruling Over “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”
WASHINGTON - A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday curtailed free-speech rights for students, ruling against a teenager who unfurled a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” because the message could be interpreted as promoting drug use.
In its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years, the high court’s conservative majority ruled that a high school principal did not violate the student’s rights by confiscating the banner and suspending him.
Student Joseph Frederick says the banner’s language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002 in Juneau, Alaska.
But school officials say the phrase “bong hits” refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.
The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, agreed with Morse.
He said a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
“Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event … poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse,” Roberts wrote.
Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on the free-speech issue and said the majority seriously harmed the First Amendment by allowing Frederick’s punishment for expressing a view the school disagreed with.
“No one seriously maintains that drug advocacy (much less Frederick’s ridiculous sign) comes within the vanishingly small category of speech that can be prohibited because of its feared consequences,” Stevens said.
“Although this case began with a silly nonsensical banner, it ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs,” he wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have decided the case without reaching the free-speech issue by ruling the principal cannot be held liable for damages.
The Bush administration supported Morse and argued that public schools do not have to tolerate a message inconsistent with its basic educational mission.
Frederick’s lawyer had urged the Supreme Court to follow its famous 1969 ruling that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” a decision that allowed students to wear black armbands in class to protest the Vietnam War.
But the Supreme Court’s last major rulings on the issue have gone against the students.
The court ruled in 1986 that a student does not have a free-speech right to give a sexually suggestive speech at an assembly and in 1988 that school newspapers can be censored.
© Reuters 2007
This seem particularly ridiculous when a nonsensical but harmless example of speech is prohibited and punished while the public calling for mass murder and the purposeful uttering of lies which lead to mass murder go unpunished.
“Oh Gawd, save us from your followers!”
Sure the kids were just having fun, but I had been the principal, I would have confiscated the banner for different reasons. As a teacher in the public school system in Canada for thirty years, I subscribed to the rule that you could not violate other people’s sensiblities by being disrespectful in my classroom. Christians could not proselytize, atheists could not ridicule religious kids, and my example of respectful behavior and language was always open to discussion. Freedom of expression must subscribe to the basic tenets of a democratic culture, which subjects our rights to those of others. And questionable taste should always be a standard for all decent people to consider.
If we in the school system can plant seeds in kids’ minds to behave and speak more intelligently and and with a sense of dignity, perhaps we can move toward a world which is less belligerent in its partisan divisiveness; what the Bush administration has taught us, echoed in the shrill voices of Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Nancy Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and a host of others on both left and right, might be a trend worth bucking.
When we bait the ‘opposition’ we simply perpetuate a culture of disrespect, which in turn leads to entrenchment instead of a growing open-minded consideration of others’ persectives, regardless of whether or not we agree.
It serves no pragmatic end to express inner thoughts which grossly offend. For example, I might alienate a lot of folks were I to voice my disgust with the idiocy of dubbya and company, or that of the religious right, so I’ll just share that here amongst friends rather than create a deeper chasm between ‘us and them’ by painting a banner for public display.
The message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” now have far greater exposure than if the U.S. Supreme Court would have just ignored it.
and if you disagree w/the gov’ts anti-drug message, as millions and millions of people do? where does this crap end? are you allowed to resist military recruiters on campus? corporate junk food? the Big Ag supporting diabetes causing school lunch policy? NCLB?
also, from my understanding, the student was not in school that day, and was not even on school property, but was across the street from the school on private property while the olympic torch passed by the school. can i have a bong hits 4 jesus banner up on my wall at home while doing homework? or is that “school” too?
the policing of expression is the policing of thought.
i bet if he had a sign who would jesus bomb, no one would say a word, bc promoting mass killing is so much more respectable than promoting a drug that cures cancer. ESPECAILLY WHEN EVERY OTHER ADD ON TV PROMOTES DRUGS!!!!
one more tho’t: isn’t alaska decriminalizing marijuana? maybe he was supporting state law?
If the sign read, “Tequila shots for Jesus”, it would have been a different story but with a really harmful drug. The conservanazis keep pulling ahead. When is that damned pendulum going to swing back? Must the liberal majority take fifty more years of conservative rule? Or:
http://ni4d.us/
What a waste of courtroom time and resources. Who really could take that banner so seriously?
I used to think these nine revered, honorable justices of the supreme court of the land would have more important business to attend to. This case doesn’t even merit consideration at school arbitration.
No, “who would Jesus bomb?” would get taken and the student suspended too because it is antiwar.
We need to break this into two issues -
1. the removal of the banner, and
2. the suspension.
The removal of the banner is not a big deal, but the suspenson seems to be far too harsh.
This may suprise younger readers, but when I was in high school, in a upper middle class DC suburb in the early-mid 70’s, marrijuana use and talk of it’s use, was virtually universal, and even tolerated to some extent by school principals. They were helpless to control it’s use anyway - at best thet could do was to keep it out of the hallways. They even allowed cigarette smoking in a designated areas of the school Nonetheless, we probably got a better education than kids get now.
From one of the original stories on the subject:
“She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.”
Either the story is misleading or Justice John Roberts disregarded or didn’t understand or the facts of the case:
“He said a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.”
The student’s speech was not restricted for something he did at school. According to the story, he was not at school at the time and was participating in a public event. Some clarification of this conflicting information would be welcome.
Marijuana is Alaska’s biggest cash crop. Somebody up there must be using it.
I agree that the principal has a right to some censureship within the school, where this ruling gets into the fuzzy area is that this sign was not posted at school, but at a school sponsored event. Were there clear guidelines on what speech was permitted?
I find it ironic the court ruled for free speech for corporations & unions, but against free speech for individuals.
Wow. I’m speechless. By decree!
If the Supreme Court made it legal to wear black arm bands in classrooms to protest the Vietnam War in 1969, then it must still be perfectly legal for students to wear arm bands in classrooms to protest the War on Drugs. That’s about all the wiggle room students have left to voice their opinion about behavior that is currently illegal.
What if it had been “Bong hits 4 Allah”? Or since he was recently knighted by the British monarchy, how about “Bong hits 4 Salman Rushdie”? I guess it would only be appropriate to put some fresh water in the bong for Sir Salman.
Many teachers and administrators consider it their job to produce docile Epsilon semi-morons. When students stand up, it is time to slap them down.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0220-22.htm
“…Frederick never made it to school… But he did make it to a sidewalk across from school…”
“…The school principal crossed the street, grabbed Frederick’s banner, destroyed it …”
War and Censorship at Wilton High
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/13/1841/
Not on school propety — and the banner itself is private property which the principal “violated”.
Still, I think the student should have been even more severely punished for not spelling “for” correctly and for using the name of the Son of God in vain.
If these nine wise judges want to do something about the abuse of free speech how about making all campaign contributions illegal. Publically funded campaigns would save us money and safeguard our freedoms—what’s left of them.
Once again, kids take the hit. This has been a bad day for the first amendment. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Faith-Based.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Separation of Church and State got narrower.
The Drug Exception to the Bill of Rights strikes again! But remember, it’s not judicial activism because the right wing is doing it. Only us liberals can be judicial activists.
Message from the Supreme Court: Don’t even talk publicly about the fact that some plants - in fact hundreds - contain juices that makes you feel good when used.
The problem with that kind of juice is it makes people feel good without “working for the man” or otherwise paying for the good feelings in submission, money and “blood, sweat and tears”.
Drug-abuse? - No problem, with proper instructions disseminated in a legal setting encouraging instead of hindering the spread of factual knowledge about how to optimize the use that happens anyway.
A drug-free society has never existed, never will. But control the ways people influence their moods and minds deliberately, and the minds are under control. Predictable consumers ensue.
Now maximum attention is drawn to drugs through media-comments on all aspects of the illegality, while minimum instruction in best use is given due to the same illegality.
The prevalent policies promote the worst of all possible outcomes, combining drawing attention to drugs with hindering optimal use. Even deliberate planning couldn’t cause worse results.
What I find interesting is that this issue was taken to the Supreme Court, when it had already been ruled on by the 9th Circuit: ruling in favor of the student. The school filed an appeal to the USSC.
A person, regardless of age, can say “bong hits for jesus” and not intend to promote drug use. USSC majority thinks differently. There is the intent of the messenger, which frankly they cannot prove. There is the legality of marijuana regardless of the age of the student (it is legal for 18 y/o to smoke tobacco or marijuana in AK [State v. McNeil]- the student was 18 y/o at the time), and there is school authority at an off-campus event., even though from the principal to the USSC, rulings stated Franklin was at a school event when he had not attended school that day.
School was dismissed so students could gather for the torch passing. Had no other students who had attended school that day participated in the sign waving, I would think it would have been very hard to prove the school’s case. At that point all the petitioners for the school would have is young people standing on the other side of the street waving “bong hits for jesus”….
OMG! The outrage!
Isn’t this the Supreme Court that is made up of Opus Dei members? I hear they flagellate themselves. I know they sent the country a message in 2001 that they would decide an election, if necessary. This court told the voters to sit down and shut up, so why wouldn’t it tell a school kid that?
When we were in school, we were not allowed to debate the merits of the American war on Vietnam. We could only turn in papers in support of the domino theory or we would receive an F. My civics teacher drummed into our heads that union members were all communists–since my father was in a union, I knew that was a crock of crap. My response was simply to draw pictures of that teacher with a Bozo outfit on holding balloons. He was, in a word, a clown. Needless to say, I received an “unsatisfactory” in my citizenship box on my report card. I’ve been an unsatisfactory citizen (from the fascist point of view) ever sense.
Schools in this country should not be taken seriously. Neither should their ridiculous grading system. If kids were smart, they would get out of those concentration camps as soon as possible.
While fascism drowns out our Republic, principals and teachers worry that some kid might have free speech–might offend someone’s sensibilities by “promoting drug usage.” Like one senator said way back yonder: “I send your kids to Vietnam, you don’t say a word. But if I say a four letter word, you want to kick me out of office.” Yep, sounds like our country, yesterday and today. Priorities are all screwed up. It takes real schizsophrenics to behave like our people do.
When I graduated from High School in 1971, I wore a peace sign on the back of my rope. The assistant priciple (football coach) tore it off just as I walked through the door.
Now it seems to me, my freedom of speech rights were violated!
Forty years ago it was whining over “Puff the Magic Dragon” and “Mellow Yellow”–we never seem to learn.
So free speech does not extend to signs that are reasonably construed as promoting drug use. The Justices got that one right and the fact that they are conservatives is irrelvant. No freedom is absolute. And the ruling applies widely, not just to this particular sign; that’s why they took up the case. I am happy to live with a law that says freedom of speech does not protect drug-promoting speech. Now if they would just apply the same logic to war-promoting speech. That would silence the Bush administration.
Yea for the principal. Why is a banner like that a good thing? Our environment is tasteless enough without having banners like that one.
SEEMS to me that chief justice roberts is legislating from the bench.was the kid advocating drug use,or trying to get attention? which possibility is the most reasonable? do the facts here,taken from the point of view of the school administration,justify limiting real life first amendment rights? why not take this up in the legislature,and see how willing elected officials are to monkey with the bill of rights? as opposed to some ideological fringe guy who is appointed for life? roberts has outdone his mentor,rhenquist on this one,and thats saying a bunch.
Ron/lobster, the sign was not advocating universal drug use. it’s bong hits 4 JESUS. he needs it from the nausea his followers are causing him.
The whole point of free speech is that no one else gets to say what’s tasteful or tasteless, or what’s good and what isn’t, etc. You only have free speech if speech is free. If the rule is that speech as to be ‘in good taste’, or other than ‘tasteless’, then the whole thing gets tangled up in everyone’s opinions on what is in good taste or not. It leads to both self-censorship and censorship based on what is ‘tasteless’ or not. And of course the opinions on what is ‘tasteless’ will always be made by those with money and power.
Fascinating this comes at almost exactly the same time as another SCOTUS decision where they refused to restrict corporate speech that can influence an election. Tasteless banners by a parade route that can’t really influence a society other than during the brief second they might get on TV can be curtailed. Deliberate corporate attempts to influence an election and to make sure the elected politicians are friendly to corporate interests can not be curtailed.
One other note. Notice how when it comes to a discussion about ‘drugs’, any other view than the official state opinion is barred from being expressed. This of course means that a democracy can not function, at least not on the topic of drugs. Your leaders have made the decision as to what the country’s drug policies shall be, and no one else is allowed to express any other opinion on the matter. Later, we have periodic elections where the major candidates all have almost identical views that match the official state view, and the voters get to choose which one has the hair style that they prefer.
For a democracy to function, the citizens must be free to discuss anything. If power and direction for the nation flows upwards from the people, then the people must be free to discuss anything and to take any position in public. If debate and discussion is limited to only one side of an issue, a democracy can not function. At that time, its the opinions of the politicians and the police chiefs being forced downwards onto the citizens.
holymoly could not be more right. US schools are concentration camps. They are institutions of confinement, not education. We even have an epidemic of school-aged suicide bombers who are crying out for help just as desperately as the people in Palestine and Iraq. Our schools are some of the most dangerous places in this country. Is that because some kid carried a banner that said “bong hits 4 jesus”, or is there some other reason? Should we blame the victims, or blame the perpetrators? Everything the US government touches turns to human rights abuses, torture, civil war, and genocide. Representative democracies are dinosaur governments doomed for extinction. Hopefully they will die off before all of their citizens do.
Ron wrote: “I am happy to live with a law that says freedom of speech does not protect drug-promoting speech.”
I’m glad I don’t work for “High Times” magazine. What’s next, shutting down any website that questions drug laws?
This could come back to bite you, Ron. The US is, after all, a Christian nation. I could see the practice of Zen being prohibited — or at least making it illegal to have a banner promoting it.
Would you have felt different if the banner had read “Bong Hits 4 Buddha?”
Having viewed several of your postings, I find it difficult to reconcile your conservative ideology with Zen Buddhism. The website linked to your name states (in part) “To be spiritually awake means that you are not subject to the laws of birth and death.” But I guess you’re still willingly subject to the laws of the US Supreme Court.
Don’t you just love the “conservative” justices of the radical right? “Strict constructionists” unless it’s overturning Florida election law, expanding immunities for Cheney, trampling free speech, or overturning less than 10 year old precedent in the abortion rights case. Yes, folks, ‘we like them conservative on the issues we like’, not so on all of the others. What hypocritical puke! What unethical liars: Scalia- ‘let me rule even though my brother-in-law is a partner in a firm presenting the case’; Thomas- ’so what if my wife is employed by the Bush transition team- there’s no conflict in voting here’; and the Big Douche’, Reinquist (turn me off, dead man)-’there is no such legal concept as “substantive due process” until I want it to make Bush king!
How do they keep a straight face making these arguments, and where is the MSM in informing the public; oh, yeah, the MSM is now owned by 6 entities, silly me…
The principal was completely in the wrong, and should have been arrested for harassment and vandalism. The sign seems rather funny to me, and I fully believe in subverting “school events” in such a way. Schools need to be places of freedom democratically run by the students.
I have a sudden desire to make a banner and go stand in front of my old high school…
Nuke the Gay Whales For Jesus!
Peace out ,and in.
This is an abridgement of our first amendment rights,the begining of the end of free speech for the proles. Peace jah
Same old thing; you get all the free speech you want as long as you don’t use it.
In Nazi Germany you could say the stuff popular with Hitler and his regime.
This is a particularly harmless if stupid example of free speech. It is amazing how much time and effort was put into something that would have disappeared if ignored.
As Lenny Bruce taught us: “If the government bans the word ‘fuck’, they also stop you from saying ‘fuck you’.”
NoahVail, Lenny Bruce said “Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government”
so much more funnier and prophetic
Lenny Bruce is the comedian’s prophet, man.
Jan: Yes, if the sign said do drugs for the Buddha I would of course feel the same way. The point is that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, is not absolute. I am not a conservative but I am not afraid to recognize it when the conservatives use their powers of reason and get an issue right. We Buddhists admire discipline and restraint, and have no problem with the freedom of speech being limited if that freedom is used to promote things that cause harm. Do you want me to march in front of your house with a sign that says “Kill Jan as soon as you can - kill her for the greater glory of Allah - she is an infidel and deserves to die today!”? Good grief - it’s a darn good thing that freedom of speech is not absolute! Let’s give the SCOTUS its due when it gets it right. As it so seldom does.
Shakker - They take cases like this for the principle it stands for. They know this was a silly stunt but they wanted to make a point and they did a good job of making such point.
Yeah, burn a bud for Buddha!
I wasn’t aware that changes or exceptions to the First Amendment had been made, but it is stated very clearly that: “First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If any reference to drugs was a violation of the First Amendment, I wonder how many songs, books, or movies would be deemed illegal?
The student was clearly violating the concept of a division between church and state. Mentioning Jesus at a school related function overstepped the student’s right to free speech when it violated other students’ rights to not be subjected to religious christian dogma in a government funded institution. Bong hitters may be of any religion or nor religion at all. The student was showing bigotry and intolerence for diversity. He should have been expelled.
Ah, Ron can engage in “reductio ad absurdum.” Quaint.
But of course, calling for someone to be murdered — as well as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre — is exactly equivalent to suggesting someone indulge in some harmless intoxication. How could I have been so stupid as to think killing someone and smoking dope were not of the same gravity!
I’m glad I don’t live in your country, Ron. People take personal freedom more seriously here.
Ron, on response to SHAK., the USSC did not take the case for the purpose of making a point. If that was the true, which is absurd, then I see no reason to have any court hearings. To hell with the concepts of argument and defense. Let the court pass points of interest!
Judgment was already passed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. The Alaskan District Court was overruled. What the USSC granted was for the case to be argued in front of them. The Justices voted. The majority voted in favor of principal Deborah Morse. The minority voted in favor of a dissenting view.
By the way, the sign did not say do bong hits for jesus, just like the analogy made by Jan did not say do bong hits for the buddha. Extremely crucial point now, the ruling was over a school district’s power over the student, and not a ruling for the general population. Bong hits for Jesus is still okay to have on a banner, a shirt, or a snowboard. Please note it is okay to print it in the newspaper. It is not okay for a student to wave the banner during school hours at a school that has specific rules that disallow such acts. During school hours, the school has the authority to limit the student’s speech, even set uniform standards if the schools enforces such laws.
The reason the student argued he had never gone to school that day is because the law states, once the student enters school he/she is under the school’s authority until the student reaches their home. Fredrick attempted to argue the school’s authority did not apply to him because he had never attended school that particular day. Even the 9th district appeals court did not find his “off campus” argument valid.
Very big differences between general public and the student at a public school and when and where someone is given the freedom to speak. Remember the old argument over “fuck the draft” was ruled freedom of speech. Had the young man wore the clothing article in the court room, the court may have voted to restrict his speech. Because he took off his jacket (?) during the court precedings, but wore the message outside of the courtroom, he was protected. There a particular rules of the court that must be followed. Outside of the court house, the man was free to say, fuck the draft
Someone outside of school hours, when no longer under the “guidance” of the school, can still say, Bong hits for Jesus. Just like they can say, Bong hits for the Buddha. They can’t make a threat to murder someone and think they are acting in a lawful way.
ps the name Jan can be given to both males and females.
“presumptions., assumptions
what’s their function.,”
Jan the man: Nice try at an insult, but surely you can do better than that. You made my point - no freedom is absolute. That is well-grounded in the principle of reductio ad absurdum. It isn’t quaint, like the Geneva Conventions. It is fundamental. So intoxicants are harmless? I wish I had known that when I saw my daughter’s best friend lying in a casket at the age of 15 thanks to a drunk driver. You and your harmless intoxicants can take a hike to a country far from where I live. The point I was trying to make is simply that the Justices had to draw a line somewhere and they did. They arrived at the conclusion that advocating drug use is right up there with crying fire in a crowded theater or advocating killing. Killing and smoking dope are very close to one another in gravity; how stupid of you to not realize that. But I forgive you. Go and sin no more.
old guy’s gotta point……..
The school children in Wilton High School in Wilton Ct. had to leave the town and state of Connecticut to preform thier play about the Iraqi war.That is how the opression starts,as the” daddy of Hip Hop “Gill Scot Heron said so eloquently
“the revolution will not be televised!” peace ,johnathan alluishous hempseed III
Ron, how’s that “holier than thou” underwear workin’ for ya? A tad tight in the crotch?
“Killing and smoking dope are very close to one another in gravity; how stupid of you to not realize that. But I forgive you. Go and sin no more.”
Presumptuous AND blasphemous in the same statement. Nice touch.
I always thought the higher courts consisted of Judges of superior intellect, even American ones. How wrong can I be. This should have been thrown out and the people bringing the action charged with wasting the Court time.
Thank Gawd, Allah, Vishnu, Jehovah, Ghutama or any of the other irrelevant nonentities I’m an Atheist living in, relatively, enlightened Australia.
Oh Ron. I will preface this by saying I am an octogenarian non smoking (anything) non drinking, WW11 vet. We,who took part in several wars, did so, mistakenly, believing it was for freedom of thought and the ability to express those thoughts. This includes the advocacy to use and take part in, to my mind, senseless drug participation as long as one is fully informed of the possible outcomes.
I really believe you are one of the Americans who cannot accept criticism nor ridicule of your peculiar legal and political system, nor of the “Accepted” conventions.
In Australia, purely by education,and the ostracising of addicts, the consumption of tobacco has been lowered to 20% of the adult population. It is illegal to smoke in restaurant, work place etc., Similar tactics should work on the illegal drugs.
Suppression and Criminalisation does not work, if it did America, Singapore,and Malaysia would be drug free.They ae not.
The latter two countries execute USERS, after fifty years they are still doing it. Saudi Arabia cuts off hands of petty thieves, and beheads serious offenders, after 1,400 years they are still doing it.
Suppression does NOT work. Education does.
The best education is when led by example.
Which doesn’t hold out much hope for the
U S A judging by its present legal and political leaders. Tom Edgar tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Whether or not the “rules” say that since he is a student and it is during school hours, then the school controls him, he was not at a school function and was in no way disruptive of school. The principal was just being an idiot similar to the other school administrators that have made their 15 seconds of fame by stupid decisions in the last few years. No wonder we have a FUBAR school system with dopes like this babe running them.
To compare this event with someone getting killed by a drunk driver stretches the imagination beyond all endurance and merely holds the suggester up to ridicule, well deserved at that.
Most likely the student must be from a broken home living with a non-biological parent. He needs the freedom of speech to vent his frustrations.
The case Morse v Frederick is over at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
Supreme Court Opinion in pdf form is linked to the page.
From the subtitle “Dissent”
“Justice Stevens, in a dissent joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, voiced the opinion that Frederick’s speech was not intended to support illegal drug use but was the nonsensical rambling of teens looking to get on camera. The dissent is of the opinion that The Court ruled on two points, that the rights of students are not “coextensive” which those of adults and that fighting drug use amongst children is a “valid and terribly important interest.” Stevens writes, in part:
As to the first, I take the Court’s point that the message on Frederick’s banner is not necessarily protected speech, even though it unquestionably would have been had the banner been unfurled elsewhere(my emphasis). As to the second, I am willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing need to deter drug use supports JDHS’s rule prohibiting willful conduct that expressly ‘advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors.’ App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. But it is a gross non sequitur to draw from these two unremarkable propositions the remarkable conclusion that the school may suppress student speech that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything.
The dissent appears to rule similarly to that of the 9th District’s position.From the same source under the subtitle Circuit Court:
…”The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court. Despite deciding that the incident took place during a school event(my emphasis), the court held that Frederick’s student speech rights were violated. The unanimous panel decision was written by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld.[6] Judge Kleinfeld acknowledged that the courts give high school students less leeway than adults when it comes to certain offensive speech - such as that which is sexually suggestive. Even if the contentious statement displayed by Joseph Frederick could be construed as a positive message about marijuana use, he reasoned in judgment, “. . . in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, (could a school) punish or censor a student’s speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one favored by the school?”[7] In his view expressed for the Court, he wrote,“The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly, ‘No’ … ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ may be funny, stupid, or insulting, depending on one’s point of view (but it is not) plainly offensive (in the manner of sexual innuendo).”
Come on you guys, the kid’s sign should have been trashed because it was just plain tacky! Wrong time. Wrong place. And his point was??? Amendment whatever-number-it-is: I will defend to the death your right to spout utter crap in public. Don Imus needs a replacement — anybody know where that kid is now?
The most ridiculous part of this whole thing is that a vast majority, somewhere close to 91% (I am sorry, I have forgotten the source of the stat I read recently) of Americans are on some sort of psychotropic enhancement drug of the “legal” kind due to stress. How odd that you can be high if it increases the profits of the major drug corps, but good Bud is censored ad infinitum even if it not only physically safer than booze and chemical drugs, it eases the symptoms of an enormous range of diseases (ie: multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, cancer, parkinson’s: you get the drift).
Hopefully, very soon in Canada, cannibis and its derivatives will be legal (after we eject the wannabe, bloodlusting, Bushlite, Harper, the sort of PM of Canada). Marijuana and its derivatives heals far more than it can ever possibly destroy.
Bongs for Joseph Frederick! Keep up the good fight man!
I wish I had time to read all the comments. Here’s my three cents. Bong Hits for Jesus! Does anyone think that Jesus would not have a hit to be sociable? If you do, you would be ignorant of the person described in the New Testament. They called him a wine bibber. Why? Because he would socialize with “those people”. Bong Hits for Jesus! Most apropos. I can think of nothing better to get one in touch with the Almighty (not neccesarily Jesus mind you). To those out there that know, do you not agree? The War On Drugs is a War On People and the planet. These so called leaders of ours are out there poisoning foreign countries trying to eliminate a gift from God. Can you believe it? Would Jesus try to destroy what his God had created? My word.
To Rob Price:
[Ron, on response to SHAK., the USSC did not take the case for the purpose of making a point. If that was the true, which is absurd, then I see no reason to have any court hearings. To hell with the concepts of argument and defense. Let the court pass points of interest! ]
Use caution with citing wikipedia. Not a true refereed reference, if you catch my drift…
Perhaps you might consider the concept of a common function within the realm of the judiciary; A term: “…a case that is ‘ripe’ for the supreme court…” This is in reference to the status of a decision rendered in circuit or appellate court that sets a precedent given the decision of the highest court, which in Constitutional and Judicial theory is the legal extent to which a citizen can take an issue of dispute.
Rather than pick apart semantics of statements from the transcript… tedious and hard to get your point which may be moot as well. Yes, Virgina, the SC does take cases based on a conceptual framework. It is, after all, the way in which due process is supposed to be conducted, (Granted, that isn’t the way this court operates, but it is often a precedent of the social contract that we all agreed to in retaining or gaining citizenship in this nation.). The transcripts really aren’t of much value since the decision will stand until there are other cases that become “ripe” enough for the court to consider and try. Truly the court considers this a “test case” (of a sort) within which a major shift in Constitutional policy may take place in that is could be altered from it’s previous interpretation…
Perhaps you might argue that the court is indeed loaded with a majority of Bush-leagers, coached by the executive branch and unchallenged by the legislative branch which, in all the dictionaries you can look up (until they have them all revised), not the definition of a democracy nor that of a representative government.
Every decision, since O’Connor’s departure, is going to swing that way until there is a conserted effort by the citizenry to make a change. The judiciary can be impeached as well.
Takes all the emotion out of it but…
thiswoman, right fucking on (I can say that now, some Court said so, remember “Go fuck yourself” Cheney and “Fuck Saddam” Bush as well as the one fingered victory salute?).
Come on nellemason, his point is he can say whatever he wants as long as he is not inciting a riot or something. He just happened to hit a sore spot.
Hey, on a related note, did all of you see the article about the high school kids who are members of the Presidential Scholars Program surprise Bush during the award ceremony by handing him a letter urging him to ban torture and fully restore the human rights to the detainees accused of being terrorists? 50 students signed the letter. And what did Bush do? He pumped them full of his bullshit by saying that “The United States does not engage in torture and believes in human rights.” LET’S HERE IT FOR THE STUDENTS WHO HAD THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO CHIMPY AND CONDEMN HIS TORTURE PROGRAM!!!!
Sorry, editor mistake. In my excitement I should have said “Let’s hear it…” instead of “Let’s here it.”
Let’s all agree for a moment that marijuana is bad. Not because it denies the big pharmacuetical companies a profit, and not because it can produce bio-mass at the rate of 15X the rate of pine forest annually as opposed to every twenty years. Not because George Herbert jumped out of a plane wearing a parachute made of hemp and not because the first pair of Levi Jeans were made of the same material. It’s bad because it hinders ambition, that is to say, it would actually make one think that ends don’t justify means. Jesus, as we hear self proclaimed Christians say is good, nevermind his idiotic beliefs about non violence and caring for the poor and meek, he didn’t know what he was thinking. To combine in a sentence an inherently bad thing with an equally obvious good thing is just not to be tolerated. The consequences are frightening. It’s quite possible that Jesus over dosed and died again from the mere creation of this sign. Or worse yet, he may have actually taken the sign at face value, sparked up a bong hit and forgotten all about his promise to “save” all the hypocrites for merely saying they believe in him. In my opinion the child demon who carried this banner should be locked away in Guantanamo Bay until the war on drugs is over. Until we have smoked out the very last bud. Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States was written on hemp paper and has the word God on it. Is it any wonder the current administration is protecting us from that evil document? Stand up tall and fight this insensitivity my fellow Murkans, and if you can’t stand, Ron, take a Viagra, you’ll get a little taller!
If Bush and Cheney are impeached, how would this apply to his court appointments? The hearings for both Roberts and Alito were more than suspect with repellent Specter at the helm, not unlike the present Gonzales fed attorney scandal. Both of these cretins were ensconced to placate the religious right.
It is obvious that this ruling is about restricting the critique of religion, for as others have said, this banner wasn’t even on school property. So in what jurisdiction does this finding apply? All public space then?
For as the “highest court in the land” presumably functions with the pretense of a blind fold against bias, it is abundantly clear that the Opus Dei Roberts and the other catholic mafia ghouls have pretty much said that anti-Jesus sentiment isn’t covered by the first amendment no mo’. The war on drugs has always been a war on the Bill of Rights, and this just the first of a series FUs you’ll see from this crew.
Welcome to the theocracy… You live only if you love Jesus. Otherwise, how about some stress positions?
The United States is such a litter box of dead souls. The people have no backbone left if they let this level of BS stand as “justice.” Second coming or no… ‘Cause what is life worth if you’re not free? Bleat, bleat… I guess we’re all just meat anyway…
marctileston, dude, God is not mentioned in the US Constitution. I liked your post though.
Oh my god, Ron is equating driving under the influence and killing with smoking a bowl in one’s living room. Ron, in the immortal words of Dick, Go fuck yourself. And Go, sin a little.
Ron should move to Arizona where they equate acts of terrorism with selling weed. Search “Arizona Statutes” if you don’t believe me. Look at Title 13, Chapters 23 and 34.
Okay, the following is before learning that the student was not at school, so what the following says would be said only more strongly.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/aaronmann/index.php?showtopic=1685
The Canadian who posted here and says he or she is a school teacher or was for decades, I only have this to say. The person strikes me as a bit utopic. And just someone saying “Bong hits 4 Jesus” does not necessarily mean that the person is proselytising, for the person may not even believe in the divinity that Christians are at least supposed to believe Jesus has. Jesus can also be well perceived by athiest philosophers, and not only can, but is; and by many enough.
We’re not going to start censuring philosophy, are we? to equate references to Jesus of Nazareth as strictly, solely religious in nature is to neglect that he, his life and teachings are also perceived as very valid and respectable by sane and educated athiests.
And to think that by being “Mr & Ms Nice Guy/Person” we’re going to be able to ever get fiends like Cheney, Bush, and so on to become humane is to be VERY UTOPIC, dreamful, indeed. I’m also middle-aged, but not of schoolbench making and not of conformism, which this world has had far too much of; conformity.
There is NOTHING wrong with marijuana. It’s not the problem; the prohitive (hypocritically, …) law is the problem, what’s wrongful, unethical, devised and established by IGNORAMOUSES and bigots, and so on; including the drug war PROFITEERS, who pretend to be our political leaders and their friends, alies, etc.
Former USMC Major General Smedley Butler wrote the book, ‘WAR IS A RACKET’, and he was right, though while speaking of military wars. Guess what. It also applies to the bs, bogus, hypocritical, fraudulent, etc., human fiends’ drug war, TOO.
Trying to make “nice” with evil does not work; definitely not with evil demons, but also usually not with evil-leaning humans, either.
The student did absolutely NOTHING wrong, unethical, etc.
‘Bong hits 4 Jesus’, though I’d probably change ‘4′ for ‘for’, there’s NOTHING wrong or misplaced about this; and the people who are too religiously sensitive need to realise what, or the kind of world we live in HERE, to “get real”, to cease being overly fussy, and so on, imo. The student was NOT at school, to begin with; but even if he had been, the suspension is stupid nonsense, as further said or described in my post linked above.
Lunafish:
You could check my citations for accuracy rather than dismiss the online source as questionable,and by default, lazily attempt to challenge my position, which, in the end, you didn’t offer an argument defending the original statement made by Ron.
Indeed the process of the judicial system offers the option for someone, as you mention, a “citizen can take an issue of dispute.” There is a difference between “… “ripe” enough for the court to consider and try”., and what Ron asserted, which is that the court actually took the case because “they wanted to make a point.”
No. What the USSC did was grant writ of certiorari and there would be issues and questions that would be presented to the USSC. In no way had the USSC previously made up their mind, and granted certiorari because “they wanted to make a point.” That’s absurd.
Consequently, the wikipedia source was for DKM who was arguing that Frederick wasn’t at a school function. The source offers both the Ninth District and the USSC positions on the issue surrounding school events. Both courts judged that the Frederick was at a school event.
The wikipedia citations I offered are accurate. Don’t take my word for it, check my facts. Read the pdf file of the USSC Opinion. The dissent is part of it. Go to the Ninth District Appeals court and find the online resources or go to law.cornell.edu It is all very easy to double check.
Eomonroe, pot doesn’t cure cancer, it just alleviates some of the pain and fights the nausea from chemo therapy. But its also great night in front of the telly too!
Peace
…and BONG HITS 4 JESUS!
Beer 4 Jesus
Viagra 4 Jesus
Cigarettes 4 Jesus
Prozac 4 Jesus
All legal and equally ridiculous as well as more dangerous than marijuana, oh the stigma of hemp. I wonder if the student would have been suspended if he used "Viagra for Jesus" instead.
Hmmmm… You can say anything you want as long as the message does not violate a given policy in a public institution. So "Hits Jesus Bong 4" would be acceptable because there is no message of advocating illegal drug use? The intended message could then be perceived as advocating illegal drug and therefore justify a preemptive suspension…
Okay, I’m done.
Bongs are also used to smoke legal substances, like good tobacco.
We occupy a country in Afghanistan that is the worlds largest exporter of heroin, 90% of the worlds total, and we do nothing to stop it so as to keep the country stable (and thats not working well). The justices must be on some of that Afghan dope. Glad we have some sense of priority, torture is ok, illegal wars ok, but “bong hits for jesus” crosses the line.
Doobie Brothers folks… Jesus is just alright oh yeah Jesus is just alright and Jesus he’ my brother and my friend… Doobie a Bong what the hell ;oops i said it again Doobie Brothers were they ban from free speech? oh it was not Skool Property? I got a Kid in the Fucking War, what do ya think of that shit. Bong Hits4 the next Oval Officers!!!! I dislike the fact that this shit is discussed while we can ignore the plight of the I remeber the Viet nam song Tin Soldiers and Nixon coming… 4 DEAD IN OHIO . thank you the next generation for showing us how we have not evolved??? Long live truth from the mouths of babes!
And now we have a clear sign that the criminals have bought the supreme court along with the white house. it’s thought control, plain and simple.
Step aside, folks. Give the Democrats a chance to applaud this ruling, and the other one, the one that has given the 2008 election to corporate interests, the guys with all the money.
arab,
Look Bud, there was worldwide protests before the invasion of Iraq, including in the US. Its unwise to put us all in the same box.
Do you really think Jesus is coming back after all this time? The question to him will be, “What took you so long?”.
Vet points out the utter irony.
Answer to ezeflyer: When that RightWing Supreme Court is replaced! It has become the Thought Police f’sure. It’s time to take back the country from the mentally unbalanced religious right.
Students everywhere ought to fight back with T-shirts and bill-caps, that says Bong hits 4 Jesus and wear them to school. They could have armbands printed up and worn everywhere they go. It could become their mantra. It could be the start of something big. I mean like posters, watches, shoestrings, toke papers, tatoos, soap, a new perfume, the list can be staggering! And lucrative! And don’t forget students, you will be the voting public in a couple of years.
Perhaps the true meaning of this ruling is that minors are not full citizens and so do not have full rights under the constitution. Perhaps it decrees that they cannot expect or demand the freedoms that are conveyed to adults. Similar to the concept represented by not subjecting them to the same trials /punishments under the law, not allowing them to: work or drive without special permits, vote, drink, smoke, or own property, enter into contracts under their own auspices… America has always codified “juvenile” as a sub-citizen catagory, and adults who are legally responsible for minors in their care have always been content with that classification and the control it gives them over / around their ward’s activities.
Right and Wrong are abstracts. Laws represent a consensus of how to measure them. Minors/juveniles are under much more stringent restraints than adults because the majority of adults want it that way. We are a nation that believes that rights are privileged to those who come of age or earn their benefit. They are not innate or they could not be removed for criminal offense.
I do not like to entertain the suggestion that the codified rights of a minor, will affect my Constitutional right of Free speech as an adult. If anyone does try to apply it that way, there will be revolution.
Ron said “So intoxicants are harmless? I wish I had known that when I saw my daughter’s best friend lying in a casket at the age of 15 thanks to a drunk driver.”
It wasn’t the intoxicants that killed your daughter’s best friend. Blame the drug not the person who decided to drive recklessly. That’s a cop out you know.
Ron said “Killing and smoking dope are very close to one another in gravity; how stupid of you to not realize that.”
That’s the dumbest statement I’ve heard in a long time. I think you need to smoke a joint, would definitely be a big help to your thought process. Who knows it might even help you find compassion for others who believe differently than you. Based on different things I’ve read about Jesus he would probably join us in taking a few of them bong hits.
The War on Drugs causes this country far more harm than recreational drug use does.
Rickster: I was merely repeating the post of the fellow who had mocked himself for being stupid. We were having light-hearted fun with word play. And then another idiot came along and said my “go and sin no more” was “pompous and blasphemous.” Good grief, such a humourless bunch! These posts needs to be read in context; many things look stupid if removed from their context. Your argument sounds a lot like the old argument that guns don’t kill, people do. I agree the war on drugs is causing more problems than drug use itself, but that doesn’t justify drug use; it merely says we should not war against it but should educate against it instead. The Buddha spoke out against drug use; I suspect Jesus would have done the same if the topic had come up.
Arab: I hear you loud and clear and I fully agree that the argument over whether or not pro-drug statements are constitutionally-protected speech is trivial in view of the great harm being done to the world by the American war machine. Most of us are embarrassed to live in a country where war criminals are in control of the government. We owe the Arab world much more than an apology and reparations. We need to bring our war criminals to justice and a few of us believe that will happen. By the way, we Buddhists don’t believe that Jesus is coming back in a physical way as the Bible predicts. We believe that when a person of any faith attains spiritual purity by transcending desires (and purity cannot be attained by smoking pot), then that person is the Virgin Mary and he or she gives birth to the Christ, the Buddha, the enlightened one. In other words, the second coming of Christ occurs whenever a person of any faith attains enlightenment. The Buddhists do not own enlightenment - no religion does, just as no religion owns love, compassion, etc. Thank you for reading these posts, thank you for your comments, and please accept the apology of this one American for the evil deeds being performed by our government in your part of the world every day. Our country is controlled by demons, but most of our citizens do not agree with what they are doing. If we stop paying our taxes, we go to jail. If we call for their overthrow, we disappear. We are not even allowed to say that we hope the Arabs drive the infidels out of their lands. It is reasonable, in my humble opinion, to restrict pro-drug speech. It is not reasonable to restrict anti-war speech, but the first American to call for an Arab military victory in the current war of aggression will be hanged. Our government has made cowards of us all, and that is why we spend time debating issues that to you appear trivial. You are right, and may you be well, happy, calm, and peaceful, despite the bombs. You are greater than the demons. Don’t let them get you down.
arab makes good points that all Americans should listen to, and stop being so pompous and obstinate. Americans really can’t fathom that we have been silently (and often ignorantly) comlpicit in acts of terrorism and genocide that are committed regularly by our government. Instead, we think we are heroes for saving the world from the error of their own ways and setting up market economies in their countries so that we can “employ” their people (and torture the ones who aren’t grateful) and extract resources from their land. It’s colonialism, the same as it was 500 years ago, and the world is fed up with it.
Six years ago, we caught a brief glimpse of how much the world really appreciates us spreading western-style “democracy” around the planet. For the first time in recent history, the American people were held accountable for their elected government’s actions, and in characteristic fashion we vehemently denied that it could possibly have been in response to anything our government did, and proceeded to invade a country that never attacked us, but did have extremely valuable resources.
The Japanese people were shocked when they were held accountable for their government’s actions too. History shows how much devastation it took to finally break down the power structures in Japan enough to end that country’s hostile aggression against the world. Will we have to repeat the same mistakes?
After 9/11, we collectively deluded ourselves into thinking it was unprovoked, as if they decided to bomb a couple of buildings just for fun, like street kids committing acts of vandalism. Sorry, but nobody, not even Osama bin Laden, does things like that just for fun. Hiroshima was an attack on thousands of innocent civilians. Did the US drop those atomic bombs just for fun? Was it terrorism? Was it a war crime? Was it a solution to a problem?
I am not trying to justify 9/11, or any other acts of war. I am simply saying that when our elected government has a “Bring it on!!” attitude, then we should not be surprised if someone out there decides to bring it on. The US has military bases all over the world. There is no country on the planet that is not within short striking distance of at least one US military base. How many countries have military bases here? We occupy the world militarily. That is an act of war. Economic sanctions are just as deadly as bombs are. It is an act of war. Dictating economic policies through US-controlled international institutions is an act of war. Installing puppet governments is an act of war. Farm subsidies that eliminate tens of thousands of small farms worldwide so that US corporations can monopolize the global food supply is an act of war. Such is the reality of modern warfare; wars aren’t fought with swords and canons anymore, and they usually aren’t declared either. Every single day the United States says to the world, “Bring it on!!” The world hears it loud and clear, but the US people seem to be deaf.
The people are ultimately accountable for their own government’s actions. And when people don’t understand what their government does, then they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of past civilizations.
None of this is meant as any kind of consolation to arab or anyone else in that region. Those people have no time left for words, and they certainly don’t need to be educated about these issues. This message is directed toward Americans.
There, how is that for free speech?
Oh and, by the way, I support bong hits for everyone, especially Ron. To borrow a slogan from our friends at the NRA, “Plants don’t commit crimes, people do”.
Good post Ron. You expressed the feelings of most of us to Arab–we’re sorry that our fascist theocracy is invading and killing you for profit and the Likud but this thread is about “Bong hits 4 Jesus”. They can’t all be about the war. You will find that many threads here address your plight.
But Ron, we aren’t going to stop smoking pot or drinking for that matter, so nagging is futile. As long as we do it responsibly it’s nobody’s business but our own. We are a diverse country and that is our strength. Healthy ecosystems are diverse. Marching in lockstep a la nazi, or Buddhist for that matter is abhorrent to liberals who, like the word describes, value the freedom to do what anyone wants to without hurting others or our environment.
Conservatives want uniformity for control. To achieve this monoculture they will control what you smoke, drink, do in your bedroom or to your own body and will kill and imprison you to achieve it in the guise of religion, their idea of civic order and so on. Conservatism = Dictatorship. Liberalism = Liberty. Liberal’s diversity makes it difficult for us to agree on details whereas conservatives easily congeal around authoritarian “principle”. Creative liberals are the agents of progress. Ignorant conservatives are the agents of regression. Jesus is a liberal and Satan is a conservative.
Though liberals here are generally not in sympathy with conservative theocrats of any stripe, we have no business invading other countries nor interfering with their beliefs.
I want to meet the person who would “reasonably” understand this sign to promote illegal drug use.
And then, I just wanna hang with him, and rap, and maybe get him high, and I’ll bet he’ll be cool with a little free speech.
Can we overturn the ruling then? Alito - seriously - Saturday night at my place.
Once again, schools are granted permission by our Supreme Court to become little crypto-militaristic police states. This only serves to alienate the young even further in society, not just in the institutions that are designed to nurture them which are increasingly hostile to them.
Ron “I was merely repeating the post of the fellow who had mocked himself for being stupid. We were having light-hearted fun with word play.”
No, Ron. You were taking words out-of-context and then calling the poster stupid. That’s just verbal abuse, and a true Buddhist should be ashamed of such passive-aggression.
Jesus isn’t cool enough for bong hits.
Prozac for Jesus! Viagra for Jesus! How would those have fared?
Damned straight stargazer!
Always blame the person not the drug. If someone screws up while they are intoxicated and blames the drug; double their sentence and they can serve time for the drug too.
You are responsible for your actions; no excuses!